Don’t Be Exclusive: Leave Some Pavement For Non-Motored Bikes

Signs along the Capital Crescent Trail make clear both that "motorized vehicles" are not allowed, and that the trail is is backed by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.

By Paul Basken

In the days since writing an article for the Post on the subject of motorized vehicles on bike-and-pedestrian trails, I've gotten a pretty good taste of a couple things.

One, as we know, emotions are easily aroused in both motor users and bicyclists when discussing their points of intersection. Motor users tend to embrace concepts such as freedom, speed and convenience. Bicyclists also prize freedom, but tend to put safety ahead of the other two.

Second, as is also now well-recognized by Americans, our national tone of public discussion on many topics has grown chronically inattentive to both facts and irony, too often impatient and un-neighborly, and prone to settlement by sheer force rather than data.

And yet, given the stakes, it seemed worth attempting. The article grew from the almost daily experience of watching motorized bikes speed along the Capitol Crescent Trail, even though that rare respite from motoring is lined with signs saying they are simply not permitted.

When asked, some users plead ignorance. Many others are defiant, insisting that anyone questioning them is merely mistaken, and that the phrase "No Motorized Vehicles" just does not apply to the particular motorized vehicle they have chosen to use.

A search to better understand what's going on led to surprise after surprise. Yes, all types of motorized vehicles are clearly banned on the Capitol Crescent and other trails, but local authorities often weren't sure of that. In that environment, local bike sellers can be found promoting their multi-thousand-dollar motorized models for trail use, and similarly cite indifference to or unawareness of the law. Police enforcement is virtually non-existent.

Even stranger: The Washington Area Bicyclist Association, the region's main bicyclist advocacy group, has not only declined to protest motorized trail incursions, but has been lobbying local leaders to make them legal. And it's been doing that without even asking its members if they agree. Furthermore, the head of the Rails To Trails Conservancy, the nation's leading force for building such trails, sometimes has taken his own motorized vehicle on the Capitol Crescent.

How to make sense of all these things?

An obvious first suspect, certainly in Washington, is the ever-present mix of finances and politics. Naturally bike groups such as WABA get some money from bike sellers, which in turn see motorized versions as key market opportunity. WABA, however, flatly denies the possibility of any influence there.

WABA instead explains itself by saying that bicyclists actually want motor users alongside them on the trails. Asked how it knows that, WABA's leader cited a 2015 survey by yet another "bicyclist" group that claimed that clear majorities of bicyclists want motorized vehicles both in bike lanes and on bike trails. Asked how such a strange notion could be true, the survey's author admitted it was "entirely possible" that his chosen participants -- a full quarter of whom admit they already use motorized bikes -- "vastly over-represented people who own e-bikes."

It's not surprising, of course, that lots of people think they'd like to ride a motorized vehicle down a bike trail. Without legal access to bike trails, complained Richard Cowden of Takoma Park in a Letter to the Editor of the Post, users of low-powered motorized vehicles would be left to the "tender mercies" of regular motor users on regular roads.

The irony is astounding. The most cogent rebuttal of all the article's findings -- about WABA, Rails-to-Trails, illegal trail users, uninformed government officials and non-existent enforcement -- that the Post could find worthy of publishing came from a person pleading to take his motorized vehicle on our bike-pedestrian trails so he could be spared from having to ride that motorized vehicle among -- of all things -- motorists!

Mr. Cowden's argument, basically, is: Please stop giving tax-paying bicyclists and pedestrians their own small protected space, because my version of a motorized vehicle is less powerful than some other guy's motorized vehicle. OK, fair enough. Bicyclists certainly know that feeling. Intimately. After all, bicyclist tax dollars help finance some 4 million miles of car-first roads in this country, but only about 10,000 miles of paved trails for bikes and pedestrians.

But where does Cowden-type logic get us? When it comes to personal safety, who doesn't want to be the bigger dude? Drivers of compact cars worry about SUVs. Drivers of small SUVs eye bigger SUVs. Drivers of all types of cars fear trucks.

The headline of Mr. Cowden's letter says, "Don’t be exclusive. Share the trails with e-bikes." Online commenters on the Post article argued that all taxpayers should have the right to use publicly funded trails. Some resorted to the familiar blame-bicyclists-first populism, accusing leg-powered (or arm-powered) travelers of just being jealous of their faster motor-powered companions.

Those are all good solid emotional appeals. But obviously the answer isn't that simple. Taxpayers also funded the runways at Dulles, but nobody seriously suggests that we should all be free to race our cars down them. Taxpayers also funded the Beltway, but bikes and pedestrians, for good reason, aren't allowed there.

So the real question is: Why have motors traditionally been excluded from bike-pedestrian trails, and is there now any data to suggest that our longstanding community approach -- which allows everyone from small children to seniors with canes feel safe on trails -- has somehow been mistaken? And as Mr. Cowden himself recognizes, a key element of that question is: Given the clear dangers he properly associates with motors, should there be any place left for those taxpaying bicyclists wanting the freedom of some kind of pavement without motors right alongside them?

For many tax-paying freedom-cherishing bicyclists and pedestrians, the answer to that second question is a loud and clear "Yes." But even for those who insist otherwise, consider what the scientific experts and the motorized bike manufacturers themselves are telling us.

First, they agree there is no clear data -- either direction -- about the safety, environmental or health effects of putting motorized vehicles on trails. There is some data about motorized bikes on motor roads, and even that's not considered terribly conclusive about whether they represent a safety upgrade over regular bikes.

It does seem true that a person trading a regular car for a motorized bike traveling along car roads almost certainly gives society an environmental benefit and some health benefit, since -- unlike the case with trails -- they are not likely to scare away many existing road users.

Still, some motorized bike advocates argue that the absence of data about motors on trails is good enough reason to change decades of policy and start adding the motors. They either deny that adding motor to trails would represent a major policy shift, or feel that such a major shift just doesn't need much factual underpinning. After all, such advocates contend, if the decision proves bad, it can simply be reversed later.

But before even tentatively accepting the law now making its way across the country, look at what it actually says and means. It's the law that the motorized bike manufacturers have written, have already been getting states to adopt, and that WABA wants to see adopted by local governments around here.

Its Class 1 and Class 2 categories are designed to allow any vehicle on bike trails that can go up to 20 mph, with any motor up to 750 watts (the only difference between the two classes is a weakly defined notion that Class 1 envisions at least a token amount of pedal contribution, whereas Class 2 can have an overt hand throttle). The law would allow any size or shape with as many as three wheels, just as long as it meets that motor-size requirement.

In the eyes of WABA, the 20 mph limit means "the maximum assisted speed of these devices is closely aligned with speeds traveled by traditional bicycles." But what data suggests that an average bicyclist travels 20 mph on the Capital Crescent Trail? None. It's absurd. Even among the super-fast bicyclists who speed along the trail without using motors, someone going 20 mph up the Capital Crescent would be in the 97th percentile.

It's even more absurd considering the target audience that the industry contends that it has in mind for these motorized vehicles: Not just average trail riders, but the elderly and others who cannot or do not want to pedal for whatever reason. As explained by industry lobbyist Larry Pizzi, it "sort of levels the playing field" for older Americans wanting to share a bike ride with their families.

It's a warm and loving notion, to be genuinely applauded. But if that's really the target audience, then why wouldn't the law being proposed by the industry, promoted by WABA and being enacted by states limit such motorized vehicles to the real average speed of an average trail user -- perhaps 10 or 12 mph -- instead of something well in excess of even the posted limit on the Capital Crescent? Does Grandma, unable to pedal a bike, really want to rush ahead of her family at 20 mph?

And some motorized advocates, to their credit, do agree that 20 mph motors with no size limit is a bit much for our trails. But they have faith that our policymakers would give us something more realistic and reasonable here in the DC area.

That's where the factual misunderstanding in this entire debate is so huge. Not only is WABA endorsing 20 mph with no size limits, but Mr. Pizzi has made clear the entire reason the manufacturers want to get a lot of states to accept that definition is that their definition will then define the models that the industry offers nationwide. Trying to enact any local variations, once a critical number of states adopts the industry's definitions, will become politically and financially challenging, because the major product lines will already be set. After years of being told that Washington should not impose one-size-fits-all solutions on America, the reverse is in the process of happening to our local bike trails.

And that's still not enough to make some motor advocates question the path they're being led down. Another favored rhetorical defense of motors on trails is the fact that some experienced human-powered bicyclists already exceed the speed limit on trails. For motor advocates, those violations somehow mean that it would be safe to now give everyone else -- regardless of any acquired riding ability and vehicle control skills -- a motor to go out and do the same thing. Still others suggest that speed-limit enforcement, not a ban on motors, is the solution -- apparently unaware that the motorized vehicles themselves are currently fully illegal and yet completely ignored by overburdened police.

Despite all that and more, some motor advocates insist it's all just concocted fears in the minds of an entitled club of existing trail users. The idea that allowing even modest motors on trails would be the start of a slippery slope of ever-larger machines on trails is wholly unwarranted, several have said. As Marchant Wentworth wrote in a brief accompaniment to Mr. Cowden's letter, the Post article "failed to convey a parade of horribles that would result from" putting motors on trails and giving travelers an option from their "steel cocoons."

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I don't see what the problem is. Motororized bikes are still bikes. So even though the rules clearly state they are not allowed on the trails you discussed the biker's prerogative takes over and they have permission to ignore whatever rules they please because remember they are on a bike - following rules is unnecessary.

It's just that they ignore different rules, and as motorists we seem to think that speed limits just are suggestions and that signalling or yielding are signs of weakness. So his comment is simply divorced from reality.

I've followed the Ebikes on trails discussion (Post and WABF) mostly while sitting on the fence. I don't really like eBikes flying along on the trails, but the fact is that there's little that can be done about it, and in the future, probably nothing, so I choose not to worry. Even if you could somehow readily spot the eBikes now, they are getting harder to spot, and in the future I can envision where you can't even recognize the difference by sight alone. There is already mechanical doping in the sport that can't be spotted by the eye (that Dutch female cyclist last year).

In the past 2 years, I've seen a significant increase in the number of ebikes on the Mt Vernon Trail. So far I haven't had any negative encounters with ebikers, which is probably why I'm mostly agnostic on this issue. But I can certainly see how, as the percentage of ebikes on the MVT and other trails continues to grow, I might start to agree with Mr. Basken. The day could soon arrive when non-motorized bicycles are outnumbered by ebikes on local trails. Is everyone OK with this outcome?

I've seen the future of biking in Europe, and it's ebikes. The will be what fuels the next big growth spurt in cycling (the last being bike sharing). This crusade to keep all ebikes off all trails strikes me as both wrongheaded and futile. The emphasis should be on developing model codes for cities that provide reliable metrics for the industry to follow, so that any manufacturer who makes an overpowered ebike is simply risking losing market share.

I see electric assist bicycles making cycling more accessible and practical for a wider part of the population. The assisted bikes I'm seeing on the roads and trails now need to be peddled to reach anything close to the speeds you seem to be concerned with and peddling to me is the key to maintaining the riders connection to the bike and awareness of any other riders around them. I don't see a wave of electrically powered motorcycles making trails dangerous. If that is what you're seeing evidence of let us know what those bikes are so we can move the discussion in that direction.

1. I am happy to see more ebikes
- but I want to see them ridden on the roads, as vehicularly as possible. Being reluctant to see them on trails like the CCT and MVT does not mean being opposed to the ebike future
2. That said, this article, by frequently omitting or minimizing the distinctions among ebikes, and by using rhetoric to minimize the distinction between them and autos, does its cause no favors. People will pull it to shreds.
3. But it does have one good idea - why not ebikes with a top speed below 20mph, closer to what weaker riders can maintain?

Sometimes, when I find myself on the fence in a debate, I look to see who is on either side of the fence. I ask myself whose company I'd like to keep. That E-bike report, which heavily over-represents e-bike owners (25% of respondents were e-bike owners), is misleading. How do the rest of you feel about being misled?

I oppose the rules that have proposed by the e-bike propagandists. I am in favor of more sensible rules. My preference would be to allow pedal-assisted e-bikes that are not able to exceed 15mph on a flat road without effort from the rider. Thanks to Paul Basken and Mr. Washcycle for this information. I was not aware of the misleading e-bike report.

While we're proposing barring trail users using spurious safety claims without any data, can I propose banning those with egos so fragile that they can't handle being passed in a manner they consider undeserving? And aerobars.

I would agree that any survey that relies on self reporting is questionable. There is very little reliable data about rates of law breaking among cyclists, but there is plenty about drivers. As a result, we cannot say who is more likely to break traffic laws. However, we can say that drivers break traffic laws at extremely high rates, rates so high that it makes it virtually impossible for cyclists to break traffic laws at a rate significantly higher.

For all its analysis, this article fails to answer the most fundamental question: What is the actual, documented problem that enforcing a ban on pedal-assist bikes on the trails would solve? You assert without support that there are "clear dangers" associated with pedal-assist bikes and dismiss without foundation that unassisted cyclists routinely exceed the posted speed limit. Average speed from Strava data? Your claims are usually supported with better data than this. Also the notion that pedal-assist cyclists are somehow noobs who don't know how to handle their bikes is ridiculous. I could assert, equally baselessly, that pedal-assisted cyclists ride more safely because they have less concern about losing precious hard-earned momentum. So, again, what is the problem? Only when that question is answered can we reasonably ask 'What is the best solution to the problem?'

As a run commuter, my experience is that ebikes only exacerbate the problem of folks going too fast along the trails. Even 20mph is pretty darn fast on the Mount Vernon trail. And spare a thought for the walkers who use these trails for exercise.

The problem is not the e-bike, its the person who operates it. If the e-bike is operated safely and not aggressively then I feel they will not be a problem. It may be naive, but promoting good bicycle manners and sharing the trail may be the best we can do on this issue. That is where WABA can fit in, advocating for good riding manners like the Bike Arlington PAL's program. Call out when passing, don't thread the needle between pedestrians and oncoming bikes, SLOW down when passing, etc. these are things that we all should do. motor or no motor (yet many do not). But I will end with, I Do NOT want to see gasoline powered bikes on the trails (I have seen a few homemade versions lately).

Just as a survey overpopulated with pedal-assist riders is not a valid sampling of the general cycling population, so too are Strava data not a substitute for a controlled study by professional traffic planners.

In addition to measuring speed, a good study should also pull in crash data and survey a statistically significant sampling of all trail users to better understand their concerns.

Who knows what would be learned? We might find, for example, that the average stroller-pushing jogger is more frightened by pathletes who pass in packs at unsafe speeds with no audible warning than the occasional assisted cyclist. Such a study could result in the baby racers being banned from their twice-weekly training rides and enforcement of the posted speed limit among all riders. Or we could all strive to use the trail courteously.

why is everyone avoiding the word "motorcycle"? If you've got a motor, you ride with motorized traffic. That there is any debate at all is a symptom of a manufacturer and retailer-funded lobbying campaign, probably a well-funded one in for the long haul. Personally it seems reasonable that ebikers may share the bike lanes with human-powered transportation on roadways shared by other motorvehicles already. For the rest - no.

Because my e-assist bakfiets is not a motorcycle. I use it to get my kids around my community, and the e-assist means I can do that every day, year-round. The motor cuts out above 20, but rarely does it go above 15-16 on flat ground. The ignorance of the need and uses for e-assist in this debate is staggering.

I wasn't going to comment but I will on one tangent about the suitability of Strava data because I'm not addressing it in my post.

One issue with it is that it only counts one trip for each cyclist, which has almost no relationship with the average speed. If the top 300 cyclists ride the CCT every day and the bottom 3000 ride it once a year, the average speed will go way up. IOW, it can overstate the long tail by showing the average cyclist, not the average trip.

It also only shows the cyclists top trip, not their average.

There's also self-selection bias.

All of these things make it pretty meaningless for determining the average speed or the average trip speed.

Danger! That is what each of us is trying to assess when it comes to experiences on the CCCT and other trails. For me, danger is riding on the CCCT with my 8 year-old on the weekends (which I will not do because, well danger), or when I am commuting and a peloton of tri-athletes on their drops comes screaming past me downhill in the other direction (not much I can do about that except tell them they are behind their Strava time). Bike riders are a lot like car drivers, there are rude and aggressive folks in cars and on bikes.

I'm in favor of permitting more folks getting on bikes of any kind. I'm in favor of bike riders not acting like jerks. I'm in favor of enforcement of the speed limit of 15 mph on the CCCT. I'm in favor of ebikes that are limited to 20 mph as are all the street legal ebikes sold in the US.

Arguing in favor of keeping new riders of the trails, who might never ride otherwise, because they ride an ebike screams of the same elitism that I find when it comes to new development in my section of Ward 3. This is NIMBYism, plain and simple, which is really "I got mine and you can't share." What makes me laugh about those NIMBYs and this argument, is that folks who believe in their hearts they are Liberals (cap L) truly are able to embrace these exclusionary arguments.

1. I look at the intent of the original rule regarding "No Motorized Vehicles" on the trail. I suspect that the intent was to keep cars, motorcycles and similar "high mass" vehicles off the trail. Ebikes and other "low mass" vehicles were not the intended target and should not be wrapped up in the rule because they are motorized. Low mass vehicles are not going to injure people in a crash like a large high mass vehicle. Following this logic should motorized wheelchairs and senior citizens scooters be banned too?

2. I believe these signs are rules and guidelines. These are not laws. So let's not get wrapped up in a big discussion over what is generally common sense use rules. If they were laws a pedestrian could be ticketed for not walking on the right side of the trail. That's not going to happen.

3. In general our trails should be wider and striped giving 2/3 of the trail to bikes and 1/3 to pedestrians. I have biked other trails with this configuration and the simple stripe is enough to separate bikes from peds and make travel on the MULTI-PURPOSE trail safer and easier to use for everyone.

I also need to add a few comments:
Electric vehicles: An ebike is an electric vehicle. If we want to encourage alternative and green commuting, ebikes should be part of the discussion. Going 20 or more miles on a charge equivalent to three laptop batteries is pretty impressive! (I know that depends on level on assist, wind, hills etc.)
Strava: (side note) I remember the discussion about loosing the GOM status to an ebike Rider.
Trail etiquette: This true for every rider, standard bike or ebike: you need to follow the trail etiquette!

Comments:
1. The major issue is relative speeds between pedestrians and cyclists on the road. 20mph (really 28mph) while not sounding like a lot is very fast for most any trail and creates a lot of danger for those walking/running.

2. The ebike is little different in power than a moped. There are few ebike proponents advocating for mopeds on the trails, yet it's basically the same vehicle power wise.

3. The most dangerous riders I see on the trails are those weaving and just trying to make fast time. These aren't necessarily cyclists on road or TT bikes. The common behavior is that they are trying to get where they are going very fast with a disregard for safety. Unfortunately the ebikes riders I see often fit in this category as they are using the bikes to commute at high speeds to work to get around traffic.

4. I'd compare having ebikes on trails to having cars on Beach Dr. Removing the motorized vehicles makes Beach Dr safer and more enjoyable for recreational participants. I know that if the trails were littered with ebike riders cruising as if they were highways, I'd be very reluctant to take my children to enjoy the trails, making them less recreational as their main purpose is.

Some good points on both sides, but I still don't see what can be done to stop it. What practical application could be used to stop eBikes from using the trails? Whether allowed or not, they're going to be there. You would be better off enforcing the speed limit, and even that can't really be done effectively, though there have been sporadic efforts on the CCT.

I regularly commute on the Mt Vernon Trail between the 14th st bridge and Four Mile Run. I have seen an increase in cyclists using ebikes, just as one might expect, some seem a little oblivious to their own and others safety and others seem OK.

The main safety issue I observe is with cyclists who are cruising at 20 mph or faster, passing other cyclists at a significant difference in speed to the bike being passed. They typically don't signal when passing but it isn't clear that signaling helps when they are passing while traveling so much faster than the cyclist being passed.

The Mt Vernon Trail in particular is not all that wide. (Compare it to the newly opened segment along Four Mile Run.) It is also not a straightaway in many places. The pavement is also aging poorly in places. If you are going say 15 mph and someone passes you going nearly 10 mph faster while also navigating other cyclists and pedestrians, any number unpleasant things can happen that will all be more unpleasant thanks to the physics of the one cyclist traveling at a relatively high speed.

While enforcement seems unlikely if not impossible, simply posting 15 mph signs on the Mt Vernon Trail would at least put all cyclists who regularly exceed that speed on notice, and provide a standard for tort actions.

I disagree with the idea that a poor reaction by long-time cyclist users of these trails to ebike users is NIMBYism. Rather the appearance of ebike users who insist on traveling at speeds that considerably exceed the typical speed of most other cyclists demonstrates how marginal the existing cycling infrastructure is. In the last few years NPS (or someone) paid to move parts of the MVT away from the parkway under several bridges and at the same time widened the trail at those areas. But otherwise it is the same as it has been for decades. Narrow, with crumbling edge asphalt, and unsuitable for increased higher speed traffic.

The lack of clarity around electric bike rules exists because e-assist is still an emerging technology. It has been continually changing, continually evolving. There are so many kinds of electric bikes that having just 'class 1' and 'class 2' etc framework isn't sufficient. I'm pretty sure that if we asked all of the commenters here to provide a photo of what think of an an e-assist bicycle, along with a list of its attributes/capacity, we'd have a pretty wide range of submissions.

In other words, the author's deliberate lumping of the huge variety of electric bikes into one big group is lazy at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

Additionally, this whole discussion is brewing, I think, because our region's trails are getting more crowded, sometimes uncomfortably so, and e-bikes represent a new class of trail user. Too many people so, last on first off as it were. But trail users usually start and end on our region's roads. And since we all know that the best way to make cycling safer is to have more bikes on the roads, well, discouraging e-bike use by banning them from trails is quite a self-defeating move.

What's next then?

1) Yes, we should encourage a frank and thoughtful rulemaking process (rather than a kneejerk reaction like 'ban them all!') among lawmakers, both locally and nationally. There are are some clear distinctions emerging among the different kinds of electric bikes out there. Innovations in bike-related laws and infrastructure is demonstrably driven by local jurisdictions - let's be a leader. If rules and regs are well thought out and articulated, then maybe we will be in a position to impact the industry. Maybe we move forward in such a way that impacts the kind of electric bikes that are successfully manufactured; maybe there is some sort of sticker on e-assist bike systems that rate it as trail worthy. Kind of like stickers on baby carseats that say whether or not they're FAA approved.

My first instinct would be to ask, ok, does your bike have a speed based assist cut off speed at 15 or 20 mph? Do you have to pedal to go? Then you are using a pedelec system, and that's fine. Can your bike help you go 30mph? Can you throttle from a dead stop without pedaling? Then no, you don't belong on the trails.

2) Acknowledge that a big part of the issue is that our trails are really crowded. Instead of shouting 'ban them all!', let's pull e-bikes, within whatever legal/rulemaking framework is initiated in my first point, into the fold. They are trail users. The increased number of trail users mean we need more, better, and improved trails, and they represent a subset of users. Let's use induced demand to improve the infrastructure of all cyclists.

There is a lot more that I could say about this issue, including that most folks don't realize all of the electric bikes that are out there - most of the time you don't notice us. You see the bad actors, you note that some of them are electric bikes, and lump folks all into the same bad actor category. (Sound familiar? Kind of like the argument that drivers make about cyclists who run stop signs and blow lights and generally ride like assholes, and lump us all into that category? Seriously, let's not do that.) I'm happy to talk more to anybody who is interested in having a genuine discussion about this, seriously, I'll buy you a beer and we can chat.

-BionX (pedelec) assisted Xtracycle mamabiker who usually has at least one kid and the groceries on the back, whose average ride speed is less than 12 mph and regularly gets smoked by commuters on flat roads (I'm heavy going downhill, so MOMENTUM! Uphill is when you really know I have the assist, because, well, I actually am able to safely maintain speed)

As a medical marvel who can climb hills in his 7th decade without mechanical assistance(!) ebikes would be just another reason to avoid the trails whenever possible. The CCT is already unpleasant and unsafe at times of heavy use for the reasons above; to wit, the great variance in speeds and the arrogance and/or cluelessness of trail users, fast and slow. I can't see this as making that situation anything but worse.

Here's my personal apocalyptic scenario: As these machines get more popular, there could come a tipping point where trail users feel compelled to buy them simply to keep up with traffic. This could could change the entire character of the trails and cause a very clear safety issue for slower users.

1> there are different trails with different charecteristics. The MVT is not the same as the MBT, say.
2. This does not necessarily map to the current laws (bans on NPS trails and in DC, but legal on Arlington trails like the Custis, IIUC?)
3. Lots of different kinds of ebikes, which vastly complicates the discussion
4. Not clear if enforcement is practical - either a limit on all or certain kinds of ebikes, or of speed limits. Much less of more broadly defined trail etiquette.
5. Many trails, at many times, are now very heavily used (with added issues due to differences in speeds between the fastest rider and the slowest walkers).

Rather than misplaced talk of nimbyism, I must ask: why do ebikers automatically assume they should be using biking trails?
If i had one, i would think twice about whether i was entitled to use a standard bike trail in the first place.

And let's be clear: 20 mph is too fast to be sharing a path with runners and walkers; i don't care if you are under your own steam or not.

@Thunder - let me give you an example: my e-assist bike is a ~70lbs steel framed cargo bike capable of carrying loads of close to 300lbs, not including the rider. It is a bicycle, it looks like a regular bicycle except it is longer, and I usually have a kid or two on the back as my cargo. I ride a road bike too, but if I'm carrying kids, or groceries for a family of five, or a four year old child and two 10lbs boxes of peaches for jam making as I did last week, I'll turn the e-assist on to help. If it is just me, I'll usually keep it either off, or minimally engaged (to make up for the weight of the bike itself). My average speed is about 11mph, loaded or unloaded. I regularly get passed by other cyclists, on the roads and on the trails.
So, let me turn the question around: why would I assume I couldn't use a trail?

Around 5 years ago I pass person on an electric riding up hill to Mount Vernon. Was intrigued by it and waited to talk with them at the top of the hill. They were riding it because they didn't have the fitness to ride a standard pedal bike. Their goal was to get fit enough to ride a regular bike. Sound it good to me plus I passed them pedaling. See no reason to stop them from the trail.

The other issue with the MVT is that if pedal assist bikes are banned they have to ride on the road, but of course bicycles are banned from the Parkway.

The main issue with trails and roads is that to many people in the DC metro area are not friendly and don't take responsibility for themselves. Instead they try to ban groups of people that don't fit into their personal cliques.

There are plenty of instances were traveling 20mph, 15mph, even 10mph on trails is inappropriate, regardless of what bike a person is on. The author's only argument for banning ebikes from trails seems to be that those bikes are capable of traveling at inappropriate speeds. Yet virtually every bike is capable of traveling at speeds that would be appropriate in some trail situations. And plenty of riders can sustain 20 mph or more on road bikes. Should road bikes be banned? Only in some situations?

And where is the mention of family biking? Cargo bikes? People for whom biking is not accessible without ebikes? Do they just not get to bike? If you're answer is "they can stick to roads", what is your response for all of the trails where the parallel on-street route is high stress for bikes (Lee Hwy instead of the Custis; GW Parkway instead of the MVT)?

Wouldn't we be better off focusing on our efforts on how we can design trails to serve the needs of all; how we can achieve responsible behavior by all users on our trails; and how we can allow people to get around without cars?

" If you're answer is "they can stick to roads", what is your response for all of the trails where the parallel on-street route is high stress for bikes (Lee Hwy instead of the Custis; GW Parkway instead of the MVT)?"

I ride a hybrid. I don't use Lee Highway as an alternative to the Custis, I use clarendon/wilson/fairfax. For The MVT depends where. In Alexandria, there is Commonwealth, and Potomac Avenue. Though getting across into Arlington is not easy I guess. In Arlington there are several parallels through Crystal City and Pentagon City, and if one is coming up from Shirlington, Army Navy. Fairfax part of MVT is more trouble, and IIUC there are issues with legally getting into DC.

Hopefully as the number of ebikes increases, as more of them are more powerful, and as more of the people riding them are folks who have been sold one as a car substitute, and not because they are carrying kids or they are over 75, we will provide suitable infrastructure for them, separated from pedestrians. That infra should be suited for fast road bike riders too, and some of it might attract slower upright riders who for whatever reason want to be or should be separated from pedestrians.

@elizqueenmama -I really hope you aren't dragging a 300lb payload on a 70lb bike (plus the rider's weight) on a bike trail. That is as much as my 1200cc motorbike. Even at 11mph, it would be hazardous weaving around runners and other bikers.

@thunder please don't be disingenuous. 1) that is clearly not what I said - I explained what my bike is capable of, and how I use it. Also suggesting that under that load I would be 'weaving around runners and other bikers' demonstrates a total overestimation of the power of the bike, and underestimation of the average trail speed.
As I stated above, if anybody wants to have a genuine thoughtful discussion about e-assist bikes, I'd love to buy you a beer so we can chat. But please don't be hyperbolic - it really doesn't add anything of substance.

Thunder, I have to disagree. elizqueenmama sounds like the epitome of a responsible rider. I have encountered cargo bikes like hers many times on the trails, and if ridden responsibly, they're no more dangerous than other bikes(except for the added mass, but that is somewhat mitigated by the slower speeds they tend to travel at).

Thunder, I don't have a cargo bike or an electric bike. But I do ride a triplet (three-seat tandem) that weighs 60 pounds, plus the weight of three riders, plus the weight of whatever we're carrying. We can easily exceed 500 pounds total weight. And we ride on bike trails all the time, including the Capital Crescent, W&OD, Mount Vernon, and C&O Canal. We've never had any trouble, and we've never had to weave around runners and other bikes. We wait until it's safe to pass and then we go. No big deal.

Hum, I am an MVT commuter and of two minds on ebikes. The handful I have seen were going faster than my 14-15mph and generally silent, I didn't hear them signal to pass. For example, some of their passes are a bit unsafe, perhaps because they are unused to the higher speeds and because the trail curves are not designed for those speeds. However, no specific poor behavior or near miss stands out. I have also misjudged a pass because I didn't realize just how fast the oncoming ebike was going.

As a new WABA member it's pretty irritating to see them endorsing motorbikes (that is indeed what they are) on our trails.
DC has thousands of miles of roads dedicated to motorized vehicles. Riding a bicycle on those is incredibly dangerous and strongly discouraged by the vast majority of users.
Why must we give up the what, two dozen miles of trails we have to more motorized vehicles?
It's obviously possible to go 20mph on a bicycle. But not for very long. Even a very strong cyclist can only maintain that for a minute or two. On a RIIDE or similar you can maintain 20MPH the whole length of the MBT both ways.
Screw that. It's obnoxious, dangerous and also obviously not in the spirit of what rails > trails is.

My experience is anecdotal however I think that it has bearing on the situation. I've seen some people riding electric assist bikes on the trails and going way too fast for conditions. On one occasion, this gentleman was drafting me on his ebike for some reason, then passed me at high speed while I was doing 18mph. He continued at that speed going around Gravelly Point on a busy summer day. Looking at him, I'm guessing he wasn't an experienced cyclist and likely was not experienced enough to be piloting a bicycle at those speeds anywhere. As these machines are more heavily adopted, we'll see more people doing the same and that will be a cause for concern especially if trails like the MVT and others are not upgraded to account for these modes.

Take a wait and see position to find out how things work out in practice.

If we really need to fiddle with things, update the rules, but call them Courtesy Guidelines. Calling something a rule suggests that it can be enforced, which others have noted is not likely to happen on the CCT.

What these "rules" really are is a list of things that you can do that will keep most people from being annoyed with you. Guidelines, other than "don't be a self-important jerk", could be:

1) Move no faster than 15 mph (i.e. no matter how you are propelled)
2) Slow down to a no wake speed when passing children, elderly or disabled trail users
3) Avoid moving erratically when near other trail users (goes for peds, cyclists, rollerbladers, everyone)
4) Do not bring any vehicle on the path that:
4.a) exceeds 100 pounds in weight, excluding human passenger(s); or
4.b) is more than 32" wide (allows for wheelchairs); or
4.c) is powered by an internal combustion engine; or
4.d) requires a state license to operate.

Headlights should be designed with a cutoff beam (German-legal, like Busch u. Mueller), or be dimmed when passing other trail users.

Electric's not part of the rule set, until it really needs to be, if ever.